The judgment establishes the principle that service termination without affording a reasonable opportunity to defend and without following the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is illegal.

ORDER :

1. A challenge has been laid by the petitioner to the impugned order dated 11.07.2007 by which he was dismissed from service.

2. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer :-

“(i) by issuance of writ or certiorary or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the order dated 11th July, 2007 passed by the respondent No.3 be quashed and be declared null and void ab initio and the respondents may be directed to take the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits;

(ii) by issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, an appropriate direction may be issued so as to take necessary action against the respondent No.3 as she has acted willfully in a mala fide and revengeful manner against the petitioner and deprived him from his right to livelihood.

(iii) Interim Relief as prayed be granted.

(iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

Submissions by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated for selection for appointment on the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade-II pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1998. Initially, the degree possessed by the petitioner was not considered by the respondents as valid degree for getting appointment on the advertised post. Counsel submits that the petitioner assailed the aforesaid action of the respondents before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3023/2004 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2005 and a specific direction was issued to the respondents to re-assess the merit of the petitioner and take into account the bonus marks of the State level certificate and in case the petitioner is found in merit then consider his case for appointment on the said post. Counsel submits that after passing of the aforesaid order, the documents/sports certificate furnished by the petitioner were duly verified by the respondents and appointment was granted to him vide order dated 31.10.2006. Counsel submits that one fine morning i.e. on 14.02.2007, the services of the petitioner were dismissed by the respondents by recording a finding that the sports certificate furnished by the petitioner were found to be forged and fabricated. Counsel submits that a miscellaneous application bearing No.20/07 was submitted by the petitioner before this Court wherein it was observed by this Court that the question of conducting separate enquiry with regard to sports certificates of the petitioner cannot be decided in the miscellaneous application and it was left open for the petitioner to challenge the same separately before this Court. But subsequently the dismissal order dated 14.02.2007 was withdrawn by the respondents vide order dated 18.05.2007 subject to conducting a separate inquiry against the petitioner. Counsel submits that in the meantime an FIR No. 27/2007 was registered against the petitioner with Police Station Kaithoon pol District Kota for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC but without issuing any notice and without holding any inquiry under the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958’), the respondents have dismissed the service of the petitioner again vide order dated 11.07.2007 by holding that the sports certificate of the petitioner were found to be forged and fabricated. Counsel submits that the respondents have dismissed the services of the petitioner on the basis of letters issued by the authority way back in the year 2006. Counsel submits that subsequently in the said criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted from all the ch